So let me get this straight…

… The only reason Brad DeLong is opposed to Bush’s Social Security privatization plan is because he’s sure Bush will screw it up somehow. So if someone he trusted more was introducing the legislation, he’d be all for it?

To me, the bigger reason to oppose Social Security privatization, even if it was introduced by Mother Theresa, is that someone else will screw it up down the line — 20, 30, 50 years from now.

Brad, I agree with you that whatever Bush ends up proposing will very likely be a disaster; I disagree that that’s the only reason to oppose it, or even the most important one. I think it’s more important to consider what will happen to the legislation in the long run. Investing in the stock market is a long-term proposition; it’s counter-intuitive as well because effective investing necessarily demands the investor do the opposite of what the herd is doing: buy low (when everyone else is diving for cover) and sell high (when everyone’s hocking the kitchen sink to get in on the action). Combine this with public policy in a democracy and guess what will happen: either the whole thing will be trashed during a stock market slump or we’ll bet the farm on it during a bubble.